Is it safe to come back? I got … distracted by life. Busy doing people and seeing things. And a dispute with gravity, that gravity won; leaving me hobbling about for a while.
Anyway, I have been watching what is happening in our poor country, and thinking. Not happy thoughts.
Today, I got sent an old article from someone on one of my email lists. It was originally published in August of 2009, before we really knew how bad it was going to get. The title is “Hitler/Obama Comparisons: Is Barack Obama Like Adolf Hitler or the Nazis?“. It actually is a short, and non-hysterical, piece that concentrates on cutting through the emotional fog in examining that question. Here is the link.
Please read it and come back, I’ll wait.
This got the neurons firing, and once the smoke cleared I had this below. We are on a path that has been trodden before by my father’s generation. It is not a pleasant stroll in the woods.
I am seeing parallels in tactics, at very least. Which makes the Institutional Republicans’ desperate attempts to force a nominee who will not, and cannot, fight Obama in any putative elections in November evidence of either willful collaboration in the destruction of the Constitution or abysmal ignorance and incompetence. There are decisions and acts in progress now that have to do with real power politics, not the electoral shell game we are going through. And everyone is purposely looking away from the reality and concentrating on the distractions …. because it is something they really do not want to deal with.
The Constitutional system in the Weimar Republic where Hitler took power was not especially deficient in guarantees of the civil rights of citizens, nor did it have any particular lack of checks and balances. What killed it was an acceptance of a suspension of those rules. In the wake of the Reichstag Fire the President and Parliament [at the urging of Hitler and Göring] approved a total and indefinite suspension of the rights of habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the secrecy of the post and telephone, not to mention the protection of property and the home under the Constitution. Three weeks later at Hitler’s request, the German Parliament passed the Ermächtigungsgesetz [Enabling Act]. The formal name for the law was: Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ["Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich"]. It allowed the Chancellor to rule by decree for the duration of the emergency and suspended Constitutional procedures. The law was simple in itself, and was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of their Parliament with most of the “Opposition” voting for it. Text:
Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation
The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.
Short form, the Chancellor [head of government as opposed to the ceremonial head of state (President)] rules by decree and can do anything EXCEPT change the mechanisms of the houses of Parliament and office of the President. Shortly thereafter, the offices of Chancellor and President were combined into the office of Führer, and those in Parliament who were not members of the National Socialist Party suddenly disappeared and were replaced with those who were. The legislative structure remained, but it was hollow.
Things today are progressing in the same direction, albeit in a more piecemeal fashion. Leaving aside the well known violations of law and the Constitution committed by the current regime; since the elections of 2010 we have seen the following:
1) For the last 3 years, the Constitutional requirement of an itemized budget passed by both Houses of Congress, has been ignored. Retroactive does not count. [Article I Section 9 Clause 7].
Only the House can originate spending bills. [ Article I Section 7 Clause 1] Yet we have not had a proper budget because the Democrats [up till January 2011 in both Houses where they had a majority, and in the Senate since, where they still have a majority] have refused to bring it up for a vote, because they do not want to be on the record. This is an ongoing violation of the Constitution, and for anyone who is a student of history and constitutional law; the basic bulwark against tyranny by the Executive [King, President, Prime Minister, Führer, Lord Protector, or Party First Secretary] is absolute control of all spending and taxation by the lower house of the Legislative. The fault is the Obama regime. The fault is shared equally by the Institutional Republicans who have not only gone along, but have been very careful NOT to raise the issue publicly. The role of the Opposition Party, especially one which claims to hold the Constitution as written as its guiding star, is to call the governing party to account when they violate that Constitution. Granting that Obama and the Left consider the Constitution to be an impediment to power and not as the ultimate template for governance; they are still bound by it and it is the job of the Institutionals to hold them to it.
Once again, as in Weimar, a willing suspension of the Constitution.
2) In the 2010 elections, one of the reasons that the Institutional Republicans were able to take the House and reduce the regime’s margin in the Senate was their claim to adopt the Patriot movement’s demands for fiscal probity. We were promised, that a Republican majority would return us to legal and Constitutional governance and budgeting. The ben4 tian1sheng1 de5 yi1 dui1men5 rou4 lied.
They said that we had to give up on the [retroactive] 2011 Budget, so we could fight for the Ryan Plan.
They said that we had to give up on the Ryan Plan, so we could fight for the [late] 2012 Budget, which Boehner said had cuts, and which turned out to be spending increases with no cuts.
They said that we had to give up on the 2012 Budget, so we could fight for the Debt Ceiling.
Then they said that we had to eat the shit sandwich of a Debt Ceiling Plan [which created a new "Supercommittee" stacked by both parties for automatic tax increases and defense cuts], so we can concentrate on fighting the 2012 elections. Anyone else see a pattern here?
The Institutionals [who made all sorts of promises while in reality fighting against Patriot candidates in 2010] are doing their damnedest to NOT hold the regime accountable for their actions and willingly looking the other way as the Constitution is ignored.
3) The regime is stepping farther and farther outside the bounds of Constitutional government. In September of 2011, Democrat governor of North Carolina Beverly Perdue [incidentally hostess of the 2012 Democrat Convention] publicly and on video called for the suspension of the 2012 elections so the government could solve problems without worrying about the reaction of voters. Peter Orzag, Obama’s appointed head of the White House Office of Management and Budget published an article in The New Republic claiming that our system of government has too much democracy, and calling for the functions of elected officials to be taken away from them and given to “non-political” government appointed officials not accountable to the voters. Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” [the proliferation of "Czars" not accountable to anyone but the President being another anti-Constitutional factor] Van Jones called for uprisings to overturn the system and in fact is one of the organizers of the #Occupy movement infesting our cities. Said movement seems to be curiously immune from prosecution for criminal violations that besides health, safety, and trespass; include 9 deaths, rapes, child abuse, and innumerable drug violations. From the White House on down, the regime has publicly supported #Occupy.
The statements by Democrat officials are not themselves illegal. For the moment, we still have free speech [but see #5 below]. But for 3 Democrat officials to make statements like this within a few days of each other [and given the lead times for publications, in Orzag's case this had to be written several months previous to September. I speak as someone who has sold magazine articles.]; this has to be a deliberate trial balloon. It flew.
If we had an administration that viewed itself as being bound by the Constitution as written, somebody from the White House would have “whacked their pee-pee’s” hard and publicly. Silence. If we had an administration whose policies did not include what they said, the White House would be screaming bloody murder and denying any association with what was said. Silence.
If we had a MFM that was not a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, and which had some idea of the Constitution outside of believing that the First Amendment only means that they get press passes and will print what they are told to print; Perdue, Orzag, and Jones would be dodging mobs of reporters and cameras demanding that they explain just what the freep they meant by their statements. Silence.
If we had an Opposition Party that was a real guardian of the Constitution and a real opposition; the Institutional Republicans would be subpoena-ing all three and making their lives really unpleasant under oath. Silence.
Once again, attacks on the Constitution, and in the case of the Democrat-sponsored #Occupy movement a deliberate government failure to equally enforce the laws, are ignored and allowed to pass without opposition.
4) Less than a week ago, the first real peacetime, non-state of emergency “Enabling Act” in American history became law. On December 31, 2011 Buraq Hussein Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act [H.R. 1540] into law. Contained in that statute was Title X, Subtitle D, ["Counter-Terrorism"], sub-sections 1021 and 1022. This specifically allows the Executive Branch to arrest and detain any person [including US citizens in the US] without formal charge or judicial warrant on a suspicion of involvement with terrorism. Further, such detention is indefinite, without trial, and given that there is no warrant; there is no habeas corpus. I reference Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments thereto. I also reference the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly characterized those who politically oppose the administration, the TEA Party/Patriot movement, and all US military veterans as terrorist suspects.
Obama’s pro forma protestations on signing that he really would not use these provisions against American citizens notwithstanding; he signed it, and it was supported by both parties in both Houses. It is especially noteworthy that in a Senate vote to specifically remove those sections on November 29, 2011, out of 47 Republican Senators, 44 including the leadership, voted to keep the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens provision in the bill. I refer y’all to the paragraph immediately above the text of the German Enabling Act.
5) When Congress returns, the second formal Enabling Act will be voted on, and assuredly pass with the support of the Institutional Republican party. The Stop Online Piracy Act [H.R.3261] gives the Executive Branch the legal authority to shut down any internet site at will. In theory, it would be because of involvement with copyright violations; but in fact the bill does not require any formal complaint or allegation of copyright violations, or any notice to the site, nor any trial or appeal. It is a kill switch for the internet. It is admitted that political sites in opposition to the regime will be the first targets. The bill has wide bipartisan support, and was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas. Smith, incidentally, is a Republican.
Where are the Institutionals trying to defend the First Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?
6) The original question posed in the article written at the beginning of Obama’s term was whether a comparison between the acts of Adolf Hitler and Buraq Hussein Obama could be legitimately made. I think we have settled that such a comparison is reasonable given specific unconstitutional acts by Obama. And we have in the process settled that there seems to be a pretty good parallel between the political opposition to Hitler in the Reichstag, who went along with the Nazi’s until it was too late; and the goolie-less, gorm-less Institutional Republicans who are enabling Obama by not opposing him.
Those same Institutionals are intent on seeing that Willard Mitt Romney is the nominee for president; deeming him as the “most electable”, and in their view as far preferable to anyone tainted by association with Conservatives. Given that he has been running for office since 1994; with the advantages of wealth, name recognition, and always with the support of the Institutionals, and yet only barely won once does not speak to his electabilty in a positive manner. And granting that he was elected, he did so only by abjuring all conservative positions; publicly declaring himself as a “moderate progressive”, promising to defend abortion on demand, promising to maintain crippling restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, and endorsing the Cap and Trade anti-capitalism fraud. While in office, he raised taxes by re-defining them as fees, and created the framework for Obamacare. His staff personally went to Washington to advise the Democrats on how to impose Obamacare. And Romneycare is destroying healthcare in Massachusetts AND bankrupting the state. And at the end of the term, he was so unpopular with both parties that he dared not run for re-election.
He does share one attribute with Obama. A passion for secrecy about his past. He has made attempts to portray himself as living in poverty during his term as a Mormon missionary. He lived in a farmhouse in rural France. I have lived worse than that after leaving school. There is nothing discreditable about it, it just is not a “regular guy” thing, and he tried to suppress reports of how he lived. When he left the Massachusetts state house, he and his staff all took the hard drives out of their computers and destroyed them. Nothing illegal, but also not normal. Finally, he has declared that under no circumstances will he reveal his tax returns. Every presidential candidate releases tax returns, even Obama.
I have looked, and I have been asking Mitt-bots, for any example in the 18 years he has been in politics where he stood up against and dug in his heels against any Democrat policy. I get silence. He is good at orchestrating attacks against “fellow” Republicans. Against Buraq Hussein, not so much beyond rare, single, routine statements quickly buried and forgotten.
I detest Mitt Romney for reasons which have nothing to do with his Mormon religion. I know more than a few Mormons, and find their belief system in general makes them good neighbors and good citizens. I am not of the Judeo-Christian faith, so there is no worry about heresy. I still detest him for two reasons. First, despite his recent convenient policy conversions of dubious life span; he is at best a New England Republican, which equates to a liberal Democrat elsewhere in the country. He has absolutely no history of doing or supporting anything conservative beyond lip service. At a time when we desperately need not just to slow the progression to a Leftist dictatorship, but to actively push back; he cannot conceive of pushing back. It is beyond him.
He has never really fought for anything in his political life, having coasted through on a sense of entitlement. He has never had to endure hard core attacks from political opponents. He will collapse under attack, and not fight back. Nominating him is to guarantee an Obama re-election. That is the second reason. He will not fight anyone but Republicans, and will make the Bob Dole campaign look like the Mongols slicing, dicing, and puree-ing the Teutonic Knights.
If the Institutionals choose to force him as the nominee, it has to be because they do not want to win. Which makes sense. If there is a Republican president, a Republican House, and as seems extremely likely if we have elections, a Republican Senate; there would be absolutely no excuse for them not working to fix the country instead of filling their “iron rice bowls”. They prefer their rice bowls.
Already we have more than a few indications that the Institutionals are not going to resist Obama as he destroys the country. Nomination of Romney would be proof positive that the Institutional Republicans are beyond hope, having gone to full collaboration mode. And that there is no point in staying with them.
Despite the constant accusations by the Institutionals that the Patriot movement will throw the election to the Democrats by refusing to support whatever ambulatory honeybucket the Institutionals put up; in fact the Patriots have held their nose and choked back their rising gorge repeatedly in the voting booth. It is the Institutionals who have consistently worked to throw elections to the Democrats when the Republican candidate is a Patriot. Given the short time between now and the elections, if they take place, probably Patriots will stay with them through November 6. It is important, in that if electoral and legislative politics are still relevant after November; we have to support any Patriots in Congress.
But after November 6 …… what reason is there to stay with them? Are Patriots really that masochistic?
November 7, or sooner if something happens that invokes honoring the Oath; a call should go out. It needs to be akin to a call that went out for July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The Republican Party was born then on the wreckage of the Whig Party. The wreckage of the Republican Party can be the nursery of a new Patriot Party.
I tend to think that it should be for sometime around April 19. Despite the state being hard core enemy territory; I would suggest that it be as close to Merriam’s Corner at Concord, Massachusetts as possible. After all, it is all on the way ….. to Redoubt #10.
LC Subotai Bahadur, Lord Pao An
I am going to try to add this as an update to my piece of earlier today. Not being an expert at this, I may bugger it up.
[UPDATE] His Majesty has posted, on the illegal and unconstitutional recess appointments. I’m pretty sure that the regulars here understand why they are illegal and unconstitutional, but we get a lot of people who drop by. So I thought I would lay it out in more detail.
1) It is most certainly illegal in the specific case of Cordray, due to the wording of the law establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Dodd-Frank. If Cordray is NOT confirmed by the Senate, he literally has no authority. We did not write it that way, the Democrats did.
2) It is most certainly unconstitutional, because the Senate was not in recess. Article I Section 5 Clause 4 specifically forbids either House from adjourning for more than 3 days without the permission of the other.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
The House specifically refused to grant that permission to the Senate, so they were in session under the Constitution. No recess, no recess appointments are possible.
3) It is most certainly an act of tyranny and a seizure of power Obama is not entitled to under the Constitution.
HOWEVER; what is going to be done about it? The Democrats are siding with Obama over the Constitution, which they do not care about. The usual Republican collaborators [including John McCain and Scott Brown, who admits it was illegal, but approves of it] are siding with the Democrats, for similar reasons.
The Institutional Republican “leadership” is silent and will remain so because they fear opposing the Democrats in the hope of “being eaten last”.
I have studied the mechanisms of the process of a coup d’ etat from the point of view of a political scientist and a historian. There are certain things that are common, regardless of who is throwing the coup. One key is that the goal is to get what you are doing accepted for 24 hours before opposition can take place. That makes you the established government, and demoralizes the resistance. The Institutionals have given them that 24 hours, and then some. And will give them as much more as they can.
jing1chang2 mei2yong4 de5 gou3 cao4 de5 hun2dan4men5!
If the law and Constitution are moot, what duty of obedience do we owe to tyrants? And if the Institutional Republicans will not fight back against an unconstitutional seizure of power by the Left; what conceivable duty of obedience or expectation of support do Patriots owe them?
LC Subotai Bahadur, Lord Pao An